Just a little taste

In a surprise move with no real indication as to why, AMD has decided to reveal some of the most exciting and interesting information surrounding Threadripper and Ryzen 3, both due out in just a few short weeks. AMD CEO Lisa Su and CVP of Marketing John Taylor (along with guest star Robert Hallock) appear in a video being launched on the AMD YouTube website today to divulge the naming, clock speeds and pricing for the new flagship HEDT product line under the Ryzen brand.

We already know a lot of about Threadripper, AMD’s answer to the X299/X99 high-end desktop platforms from Intel, including that they would be coming this summer, have up to 16-cores and 32-threads of compute, and that they would all include 64 lanes of PCI Express 3.0 for a massive amount of connectivity for the prosumer.

Now we know that there will be two models launching and available in early August: the Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X.

The 1920X will feature 12 cores, 24 threads, a base clock of 3.5 GHz, and Boost clock of 4.0 GHz. Priced at $799, the 1920X goes aggressively between the Core i9-7900X at $999 from Intel (10c/20t) and the Core i7-7820X at $599 (8c/16t). AMD demoed the Threadripper 1920X against the Intel 7900X in CineBench R15, beating it by 12%.

Priced at $999, the Threadripper 1950X has the full 16 cores and 32 threads of compute, running at a base clock of 3.4 GHz but still is targeting the boost clock rate of 4.0 GHz! For reference, this is the same clock Boost clock speed as the Ryzen 7 1800X. At $999, the 1950X is the direct target at the 7900X, but will offer considerably more multi-threaded performance. It resulted in a Cinebench R15 score of 3062, 41% faster than the Core i9-7900X!

Obviously, this is only a single performance data point, and we know that Intel will maintain its performance advantage in single threaded workloads, but the aggressive pricing and performance capability in multi-threaded workloads bodes well for the Threadripper product. Questions of power consumption will remain, but AMD has some wiggle room here based on the extremely high power draw we see from the current assortment of Skylake-X parts, not to mention the issues and questions surrounding the X299 platform’s VRM concerns.

There were rumors that the Threadripper processors were going to target a $849 price tag so there will likely be some disappointment that AMD didn’t hit those numbers. Still, $999 for the 16-core part puts it $700 below the MSRP of the 16-core Intel Core i9-7960X processor while also shipping well before it. I knew that AMD wanted to put pressure on the Skylake-X family and this price, despite being higher than the rumors, still accomplishes that. There is a lot more to test, including gaming performance and boat-loads more applications and workflows, but the first glimpse of Threadripper is very, very strong.

Don't forget about Ryzen 3!

While news of the high-end desktop announcement will get the most attention, the most sales will probably be with also-announced Ryzen 3 product family. Expected after the announcement of the Ryzen Pro series that included Ryzen Pro 3, plain old Ryzen 3 will be available in the form of the Ryzen 3 1200 (3.1 GHz base, 3.4 GHz boost) and the Ryzen 3 1300X (3.5 GHz / 3.7 GHz). These are both quad-core and quad-thread, bucking the trend of having SMT enabled across the entire Ryzen family.

No pricing information was shared yet, but AMD says they will be selling on store shelves as of July 27th, so we will know very soon. I expect pricing to be in line with the Core i3 family of processors, but with four true cores, compared to the dual-core / HyperThreaded implementation that Intel offers, AMD should continue to show multi-threaded performance benefits and slight single threaded deficits.

The year of AMD continues to march on – the company has already released Ryzen 7, Ryzen 5, the Radeon RX 500 series, EPYC data center processors, and Vega Frontier Edition. Ryzen 3, Ryzen Threadripper, and RX Vega are all due later this month or early in August. The hallways in Austin and Santa Clara must be buzzing with excitement because I know our team and readers can’t wait to get our hands on the goods!

Depends entirely on your workload. If you have highly threaded workloads, then the MOAR THREADS options from AMD work out very well indeed. If you need ST performance, then they're not very good value (and at the top end, there simply aren't any options for high ST performance).

This was the same tired nonsense from the single core crowd when dual core CPUs came out. "but but my single core performance is so much better than your dual cores". Single thread performance is not as important as it used to be and will continue to fade into the sunset. The only reason anyone cares is because a lot of legacy software is still around. That is changing. CPU manufacturers such as Intel know this as well. If they could squeak out anymore IPC without raising the MHZ through the roof they would. Instead you see more cores as the solution. There are limits that make chasing that dragon not worth it. I would suspect the 7700K is one of the last we will see.

If you need single-thread performance, Devil's Canyon at ~4.8Ghz will still do you just fiiiiine. Hell even a 5Ghz Sandy won't be far off unless you're talking situations that can really make use of AVX.

The thing is, I'm struggling to think of people other than 144hz+ 1080p gamers who need that level of single threaded performance without so much as a nod towards any situations where more threads would also help.

Thats because your a dumb ass gamer that doesnt know much about anything. The application for faster CPUs are infinate and will be infinate throughout your lifetime. Look at the compression algorithm space alone. There are hundreds of highly CPU intensive compression algorithms that deliver incredible compression but not suitable because of the high CPU requirements. When a CPU makes these algorithms more feasible, all areas benefit such as storage, memory utilization, network utilization, etc. Look at the effects of HEVC vs x264 or MP3 vs OPUS alone. You couldnt even decode HEVC 8 or so years ago on a typical PC, now we are doing it on phones.

Not for any professional workststion workloads when there will be the Epyc branded 24 core 7401P Epyc(Real Workststion) 1P SKU for $1075.00, and even a 16 core Epyc(Real workststion) branded Epyc 7351P/1P SKU for $750.00 with all the Epyc branded CPUs getting the full 128 PCIe lanes and that Fully certified CPU/Motherboard Error Correction CPU/RDIMM/Motherboard support.

Please stop with the calling any Ryzen/Threadripper consumer branded SKUs workststion grade. And uncertified ECC uasge on any CPU/Motherboard SKUs that are not certified is not, NOT, for REAL workstation useage.

It's not about the clocks with workststions is about the accuracy and that FPS matric is meaningless for most Professional Graphics workloads. I'll take the 128 PCIe lane Epyc Branded REAL WORKSTATION SKUs any day over any Ryzen/Threadripper Consumer SKUs!

128 laines of PCIe is Epyc amounts of bandwidth for plenty of SSD/RAID and Radeon Pro WX GPU Workstation(Real) goodness!

If AMD are placing the 2 Zeppelin dies on that MCM under the same large size can as their 4 Zeppelin die based Epyc designs then there has to be some intrinsic thermal advantage to Threadripper(TR) under a larger block of metal with which to transfer the thermal load. So AMD can really get the TR's CPU clocks higher and not have any thermal issues with only half the number of Zeppelin dies under that large supersized can. That's plenty of extra surface area with which to effectively conduct heat away from the Zeppelin Dies, and each Zeppelin die is separated so that makes it possible to treat the individual Zeppelin die as separate entities as far as thermals are concerned and maybe even clock one Zeppelin die higher while the other can be clocked lower.

Games developers will even have, via the OS/CPU drivers, the ability to maybe run the games on one Zeppelin die and the OS/bloatware on another, or even spread the load around to say 4 cores on one Zeppelin die and 4 cores on the other and then run 8 cores spread across to Zeppelin dies at even higher clocks. There is plenty of ways to tweak loads dynamically when developers have 2/8 core Zeppelin dies that are acting as separate thermal domains and are physically separated under that large sized can like the one that is used for Threadripper and Epyc systems. That’s one big block of metal covering those two Zeppelin dies and the dies are far enough apart to have some intrinsic physical thermal separation/isolation that can be used to an advantage by software/hardware.

And AMD is not using any Intel brand tooth paste to thermally connect the Zeppelin dies to the can, so that’s why the clocks can maybe get higher.

Thermal conduction is proportional to cross sectional area. You aren't going to transfer much heat through the "lid" sideways; it will mostly be just straight up into the heat sink. It should help a bit to have two separate chips with some space between them. The heat sink will need to cover the area of both though. Some heat sinks with a small contact area in the middle may not be compatible.

If the heatsink's block does not cover the entre lid then the heatsink not for that CPU SKU. So any attempts at using a heatsink not made explicitly for Threadripper/Epyc SKUs is not going to work out so well. The Heatsink OEM's should have plenty of room to run more heat pipes/larger heat pipes over any Threadripper/Epyc Cans and those Zeppelin Dies will have plenty of metal in the TIM and the Can to conduct heat away very efficiently to any large size block on a properly engineered heat sink. There will be the water blocks to consider also and then things can get interesting.

That's twice the Ryzen 1800X introductory/MSRP price on that top end Threadripper SKU and most likely AMD's exclusive OEM PC launch partner(Dell/Alienware) for OEM builds using the 16 core Threadripper variants only will have some bulk pricing advantage at first if Dell/Alienware does not try and milk its initial advantage in the OEM HEDT/Gaming PC market. So individual home system builders will have to fork out the full retail pricing for both Threadripper and any Threadripper(TR) motherboards while Dell has its OEM/high volume Bulk discounts on both TR and TR/motherboards.

AMD's 80%+ Wafer Yields on that Modular(Server/EPYC First design that was also used to create Consumer/Ryzen desktop and now Threadripper HEDT SKUs) Zeppelin die will mean that there should be plenty of Threadripper CPU SKU stocks(16 cores/lower core count SKUs) to meet home system builder demands and also provide for any other OEM deals like AMD’s Dell/Alienware exclusive introductory Threadripper deal.

Just because AMD released Ryzen/consumer SKUs first using that Modular Zeppelin die that was/is actually engineered first and foremost for the Server/Workstation/HPC markets does not imply that the Zeppelin die is/was ever solely engineered as a consumer/desktop focused design. AMD with its limited funds had only enough resources at the brink of bankruptcy to design the Zeppelin die for the server/professional market first and use that modular Zeppelin Die(With all its full Server/pro features) for all of its Server/Epyc and Consumer Ryzen/Threadripper lines of professional, prosumer, consumer desktop market SKUs.

AMD’s modular Navi designs will have the same sorts of pricing/scalability/availability impacts on the GPU market that AMD now has on the Server/HEDT/Home PC market. And Navi’s modular design will give AMD those great GPU die/wafer yields and the ability to more affordably create a full line of mainstream and flagship GPU SKUs and not have AMD having to introduce mainstream GPU SKUs one year and flagship GPU SKUs the next for lack of sufficient funds for multiple die tape outs or have any GPU die stocks shortages/other issues related to having to engineer many different die designs.

AMD is going full on modular across all of its desktop/professional CPU and future Navi GPU based designs. Modular design has some intrinsic advantages and cost savings in wafer/die yields, engineering, and product design and scalable designs will rule as even Nvidia is talking the modular talk for its future GPU designs.

The modular design really is extremely impressive. It allows AMD to produce hardware far exceeding what has generally been accepted (4core8thread) at a cost everyone can afford. All of the talk about a few FPS losses in gaming are short sighted as newer DX12 and vulkan games better utilize multi core and thats the future.

The modular design really is extremely impressive. It allows AMD to produce hardware far exceeding what has generally been accepted (4core8thread) at a cost everyone can afford. All of the talk about a few FPS losses in gaming are short sighted as newer DX12 and vulkan games better utilize multi core and thats the future.

"Still, $999 for the 16-core part puts it $700 below the MSRP of the 16-core Intel Core i9-7960X processor while also shipping well before it. I knew that AMD wanted to put pressure on the Skylake-X family and this price, despite being higher than the rumors, still accomplishes that."

Maybe after a while some lower clocked 16 core Threadripper variants will be offered for those that are not into gaming as much. But it looks like many non gamer graphics users may be able to afford the full 24/16/12/8(yes an 8 core variant) core Epyc/workstation SKUs and get those mad 8 memory channels/128 PCIe lanes offered on ALL(No product segementation/gimping as far as the full 8 memory channels/PCIe lanes) single socket Epyc SKUs.

Definitely welcomed competition from AMD. What is attractive from the Intel side with x299 is the cost of entry. You can start with a low end X299 CPU like the 7740X with the possibility of upgrading to a higher end chip down the road. Would be ideal for someone who's workload changes based on what they are doing. AMD needs to introduce a similar strategy. It just seems the upgrade path is in favor of Intel while AMD has put the pressure on the ultra high end segment.

You CAN do that, but you'd be nuts to spend $300+ on an X299 motherboard and then stick a quad core in it. Not to mention, who'd even WANT an i9? Ridiculous heat and power draw, combined with lower performance than Broadwell-E in many tasks. Maybe Coffee Lake-E or Cannonlake-E or whatever's next for X299 will be better, but that's years off, and who knows what other options will be available by then?

You can get X299 boards for well under $300... It's all about the upgrade path... Some people may want in to the X299 system, but would like to save up for a better cpu down the road... And, if I read the table correctly, Threadripper has a tdp of 180 Watts... The point is, there are more options with X299 than there is with X399.

Why spent "just under $300" for a 299 motherboard when you can probably get a decent motherboard for half of that and put a 7700K on it? To avoid replacing the motherboard when needed to upgrade? Well, you pay in advance about $150 or more just to avoid replacing the motherboard, compare to going to a 7700K. But as it is happening many times when doing that kind of plans, two years latter, when you would like to upgrade, there are better options in the market. Better processors, better motherboards, motherboards with new features unavailable when buying your ultra super duper X299 motherboard. And so, in many cases your initial investment to avoid replacing the motherboard, either ends up in the trash, or ends up becoming the primary limiting factor to your upgrade. Because having spent in front $150, it will be extremely difficult to persuade yourself to go for a better solution that will cost you almost the same as upgrading that 7740K cpu and keeping the, now old, motherboard.

Well, considering the X99 chipset was around for almost 3 years, I think it's safe to say that the same will hold true for the X299 one. Looking at the cpu's available for X99, from the consumer side, there were roughly 9, through two gens. With the initial release of X299, there are 9. The 7640X is only $242. You're looking at under $500 entry for the cpu and mother board with equal to, or greater than, that of the 7700k.

The X99 lived in an era of... peace, with no competition from AMD and with no real advancements from Intel. X299 comes in a market where it faces competition from AMD. Add to that that Intel is finally bringing 6 cores at the mainstream platform, and you are throwing $242 on a Celeron that would be impossible to sell for over $100 2 years latter and probably I am very generous here.

By buying the 7640X you pay to *enjoy* a 4 cores 4 threads CPU on an ultra expensive platform for two years and in the end spent the same amount of money you would have spend for a 4 cores 8 threads, or even a 6 cores 12 threads Intel cpu from day 1.
And I don't even mentioning Ryzen here. It doesn't exist. Forget that. Well, even in that case it is a bad idea.

You can think and do what ever you wish with the money you have. All I know is that I want a high end system with a relatively low entry cost wise... and with the potential to upgrade to a better cpu within 6-12 months, not to mention what will be available next year, or the year after. When considering X299, you compare that to similar high end products like AMD's Threadripper. You have two CPU choices for the X399. Cost of entry is considerably higher. I'm not looking at bang for buck here, either, which is what you're getting at. If you look at the platforms separate of cost, then you can see that X299 has a better upgrade path based solely on the number of options you get from Intel compared to AMD. That's not comparing performance numbers either, which are all similar. What changes is the budget you go into purchasing these products. If you have $2k to spend, then your choices become more challenging and requires more in depth analysis.

Keep grasping at those straws. Intel grew greedy, fat, and lazy taking advantage of their customers, which got them straight-up caught with their pants down.

If Intel had spent their money on real innovation and working to deliver the best product they can for the best price they can instead of marketing with expensive actors in an attempt to milk more money from their customers on ever-decreasing performance improvements on the same product, they wouldn't be getting embarrassed right now.

What straws am i grasping at? My point is upgrade path, as previously stated. If you compare what Intel has to offer on their X299 platform with what AMD has, it is clear that you have more options with Intel, as of right now. In fact, you can't even buy a Threadripper cpu or X399 motherboard yet. I'm not arguing performance, I'm talking strictly options and future upgrades. Intel has the current advantage. You can't argue otherwise when looking at just the high end desktop market.

I'd be willing to put a good amount of money on the number of people daft enough to do this being a tenth of a percent of the market. It makes absolutely no sense. Either you have the money for better, and you buy it, or you don't and you get the same performance for a lot less money.

Rather than compare 16-core AMD to 16-core Intel (which will not be out for a few months after,) it's better to compare by price. Which, not surprisingly, is what AMD is doing here. $999 for 16 cores vs $999 for Intel's 10 core. Multi-threaded performance is what it is...better (as it should be.)

Here is a deeper dive(1) into AMD's Infinity Fabric from the NextPlatform and it's part of a two part series with second part published today(2). There are some intresting latency figures and such, but of more intrest is comparsions to Intel's Embedded Multi-die Interconnect Bridge (EMIB) IP(1). The second article in the series really goes into greater detail with several of AMD's Epyc Platforms detailed including an "The Epyc one socket GPU accelerated node" system.

It's a very informative read and there needs to be more questions asked to AMD's engineering folks regarfing any Zeppelin die based CPU SKU to Vega GPU SKU direct Infinity Fabric interfacing/communication advantages with maybe some benchmarking results.

Also the author states:

"The Zeppelin die is used across AMD’s Epyc data center products and Ryzen desktop products. AMD’s back-end production process at GlobalFoundries first sorts Zeppelin wafers based on defect densities. Wafers with the lowest defect densities and several other beneficial characteristics are separated for Epyc and Ryzen Pro use and run through a more rigorous back-end manufacturing, verification, and validation process than wafers destined for Ryzen consumer products. Also, a few commercial features are disabled for consumer products.

The aggregate volume of die used to create multiple product stacks based on the same building block also contributes to driving the volume of that die up and the price down. Using several small die in many different products acts as a force multiplier for volume pricing."(2)

What I'm even more intrested in is any Epyc to Vega Micro-Arch based GPU SUs that can communicate via the infinity fabric at a greater speed than PCIe 3.0 as the author states that:

"Each of the four Infinity Fabric connections between the two sockets uses the same serializer-deserializer (SERDES) links used by the 16 PCI-Express 3.0 lanes, but operating 20 percent faster than the PCI-Express 3.0 link, at about 9.5 Gb/sec each for 9.5 GB/sec bidirectional bandwidth between processors and an aggregate cross section of 37.9 GB/sec bidirectional bandwidth between sockets."(1)

So what potential is there for any Epyc to Vega, via that infinity fabric workloads for a more coherent(NvLink style) CPU to GPU interfacing for some graphics workststion/Epyc usage and maybe even the same for some high end consumer SKUs now that is is apparent that it is in fact the very same Zeppelin die(According to the author) that is used accross all of AMD's Epyc/Ryzen/Threadripper SKUs and that Zeppelin Die was designed for the server usage first and formost and used across all of AMD's Epyc and Ryzen/Threadripper SKUs(With some server functionality disabled on the consumer variants).

Interesting: "...Wafers with the lowest defect densities and several other beneficial characteristics are separated for Epyc and Ryzen Pro use."

Passmark lists a PRO 1700x benchmark result, which is almost 8% better than the regular 1700x and 3% better than the 1800x!! Granted that it's a single result but it still makes me wonder if PROs overclock better.

I think that the extra validation/testing is there mostly because the professional level of warranty protection. A 36 month limited warranty for Ryzen Pro and more security features enabled for any Ryzen Pro SKUs, as well as the Epyc branded SKUs.

Also AMD will offer a production/availability timeline of 24 months before the specific Ryzen Pro SKUs are no longer produced/available. So businesses can be assured of a supply of parts for PCs/replacment PCs with the specific Pyzen Pro SKUs if they decide to target their software/certification around any specific Ryzen Pro SKU. That includes firmware/driver/platform support(18 Mo) for a longer period of support than most consumer branded SKUs. Businesses can purchase thousands of these Ryzen Pro SKUs and be assured that they can get at least 5/longer years useage and longer warrenty/support period before moving on to the next purchasing/certification cycle on newer PC hardware.

It looks like the Ryzen Pro SKUs are clocked lower by AMD to last longer and I'll bet that the 36 Mo Limited warrenty will be voided if the parts are overclocked outside of AMD's automatic base/boost range.

"Secondly, as you'd expect from a business-focused product lineup, AMD’s Ryzen PRO platforms have longer guarantees for platform stability and processor availability. Specifically, AMD is promising that the Ryzen PRO family will offer an 18 month window for platform stability and 24 month of processor availability."(1)

Thanks for that Ryan
wow lots of goodness coming out of AMD right now and its exciting I must say looking at a new system build with a Ryzen CPU and the choices its seems will be plentiful at competitive prices, its a great time to be a tech enthusiast i must say. Looking forward to your full reviews on these products in the near future.

Who cares if AMD glued CPUs together or not. If yes - then it is hell of a glue to kick Intel oversize backside, if not then its even worse for Intel premise that AMD is gluing CPUs.

And let me tell you this - at least AMD know how to use the glue. Look what happens when Intel using glue as a TIM. :D

ROFL-(Chairman)-MAO. Up yours Intel, so can't wait for TR... Boards first then waiting for waterblocks argh... its killing me. Hope Asus deliver some WS with more SATA ports than pathetic 6 on "Zenith Extreme".

You know you can only use Intel branded SSDs for a bootable setup on X299/Skylake-X in virtual RAID1/5 with a separate hardware key/dongle, right? How nice of them to include VROC RAID0 without a dongle.

You're still locked in to an Intel-only ecosystem. For non-bootable, I guess you can use whatever brand of SSD you want.

They better get moving fast to launch these as soon as possible. They are in a rare situation where they will have, for a few months until Intel releases higher than 7900X spec processors, the best CPU on the consumer market, with the highest performance, period. They should try to make the most of this, really, because rarely is Intel caught off guard as they were with this launch.

The most unaffordable CPUs on the consumer market, with the highest prices, period. With an, at extra cost $$$$, RAID key required to enable features that Intel has disabled in a greater attempt at an even more infamous Intel product segementation to milk, milk, milk the consumers of all their cash! You want extra PCIe lanes you have to pay for that also while Threadripper comes standard with 64 PCIe lanes. The most expensive CPUs covered in in a TIM, that 4 out of 5 dentists recommend for proper dential hygiene, and topped with a lid is what you get while your bank account goes into overdraft mode.

Better hurry on down to the payday lender before you rack up those hefty bank overdraft fees that are just as costly as Intel's extra costly RAID enabler keys.

Look there are folks that are saying that AMD is finished if Vega does not totally beat the top end Nvidia SKU for gaming. But AMD will be making so many more 10s of billions with its Epyc SKUs and maybe a little less but still in the billions with Ryzen, Zen/Vega APUs, and Threadripper. So even if Vega just performs like the GTX 1080 and can approach the 1080 TI, with AMD's usual driver/games improvements, then AMD can do just fine. Regardless, AMD has an Epyc revenue stream incoming and no problems there with making it over the hump.

AMD is really more focused on its Epyc and Radeon Vega Pro-WX/Radeon instinct Vega based products and the profssional markets, because that Nvidia 97.01 billion market cap says that Nvidia has the professional GPU market earnings more than Nvidia's gaming market to thank for Nvidia's success, car SOC market also.

AMD's Vega for the consumer market does not have to beat Nvidia's top end SKU, and Vega for gaming only needs to get AMD a comparable in performance flagship GPU that is in the GTX 1080 to GTX 1080 TI range of gaming performance and Raja's Job is very secure. Raja's RTG performance in the professional Compute/AI markets is the only thing that Raja really has to worry about to keep his position. AMD's Epyc and any of AMD's current(Polaris) and newer Vega micro-arch based Radeon Pro WX/Radeon Instinct SKUs is where the real money is to be made, and the gaming consumers who need to own the fastest will simply have to pay more this time around, the same as the last time around.

Currently AMD's Polaris based RX 470/570 and RX 480/RX 580 SKUs are selling out and for whatever reason AMD is still earning revenues, and the same will go for RX Vega, even without coin mining, because AMD's GPUs are still good for more than just gaming. AMD's Zen Micro-Arch is good enough to float AMD's entire boat and Polaris is still making AMD plenty of revenues, and that's all there is to staying in business for AMD.

When you see Raja Koduri smoking that expensive cigar, he's thinking about RTG's Radeon Pro WX(Formally Branded FirePro) and Radeon Instinct sales/revenues, alongside the Epyc SKU sales/revenues, because that's the market that JHH of Nvidia makes most of his billions in, Intel also for CPUs(Not Much longer for Chipzilla's high margins though but still in the billions). But Epyc will take market share and Epyc needs those Radeon Pro WX/Radeon Instinct SKUs to complement those workloads in that mad revenues producing professionl Server/HPC/Workstation, and new AI markets.

Yes, i think the plan has always been for a building block gpu, rather than a monolithic BEST gpu.

Vega gpu ~equates to the zen ccx in dimension and status in their architecture.

I would bet 3 months after release, it will at least equal the 1080, and being new gen, have much depth for future growth, that the nvidea lacks.

Discrete GPUs are just a stepping stone for AMD, on the path to teams of multiple cpu & gpu processors, interconnected on Fabric X399~ MCMs, which will spank anything intel/nvidea can do over the systemS pcie bus. ie. mega APUs.

Still, w/ no pro bench marks on FE, and no actual gaming version, amd seeming to do little to stomp on hi expectations like a 1080i killer, and that mysterious alleged secret sauce, a trove of zen/vega synergies between sibling AMD cpu & gpuS for coders to utilise, ... Its still a very open debate.

AMD is coming out swinging. I think that they are gonna start making multi-threaded GPU's in the near future. Something that I don't think that nVidia will be able to compete with. If they came out with a multi-threaded GPU (or say, a GPU with an R7 capability) they would have beaten back both Intel and nVidia. Mix multi-threaded GPU with HBM? Whew.